Hi folks – two quick updates:
1) New South Table Mountain Development Proposal (very time sensitive)
Proposals to develop South Table Mountain (more than it already is) have, over the years, engendered fierce opposition from Golden residents. It's been a while since we had to contend with a significant threat, but here we are again. This is really more of an old threat that's been revived, specifically a proposal to construct a 10-acre solar farm, and while Golden and Golden residents are generally supportive of solar development, there has long been a strong consensus that the top of South Table Mountain isn't the right location.
The proposal involves private property in unincorporated Jefferson County, and there are real questions as to whether the proposal meets Jeffco's requirements.
I appreciate that City Council weighed in with the Jefferson County Board of Adjustment. I wish it had more clearly expressed opposition, but it did clearly convey that City Council is concerned about it. And I think speaking at the Board of Adjustment meeting tomorrow morning would also be an effective way to help influence the outcome (for anyone in the community and for members of City Council). You can use City Council's letter and the staff memo for more details.
The meeting is scheduled to begin around 9am and this hearing ("Special Exception: Bear Creek Development Corporation") is the second main agenda item. You can attend and provide testimony in person or virtually. The details are on this agenda document, and this is a page with more info on their hybrid hearing format.
2) CoorsTek Redevelopment
After a welcome slowing-down of the proceeding to give the community and Planning Commission a chance to catch up, the proposed CoorsTek rezoning is back at Planning Commission tomorrow evening.
My post from February also might be helpful if you are new to the issue or just want a refresher (The CoorsTek Rezoning: 'A Once in a Generation-Scale Development').
I haven't seen any proposed changes to their original submission, so it's possible they've made adjustments that will reasonably address community concerns. Absent such changes, I have the same concerns:
The Planning Commission's consideration should be focused on legally enforceable commitments made by the applicant. If it's not locked in through PUD/ODP or otherwise legally enforceable, it's not relevant to whether the proposal is appropriate.
The fundamental question is what value does our community get from the project above and beyond what would happen if it were developed under the current zoning, and how does that compare to the ways in which the applicant wants to be exempted from the limits of the current zoning.
Affordable housing commitments are extremely important, from my perspective, but they aren't worth much unless they involve permanently affordable units, either through deed restrictions, ownership of rental units by a housing trust, or a comparable mechanism.
The most important sustainability investments need to happen on the front end of the development, not at some potential point in the future.
I'm not opposed to a large-scale rezoning of the property, but I feel like the community deserves to have a much clearer idea of what we would be getting (the legally enforceable things, not the developer's plans or vision) and what we would be giving up.
To provide input, you can either:
Send an email to the Planning Commission by 1pm tomorrow: planning@cityofgolden.net
Speak during public comment at the Planning Commission meeting: 6:30 P.M. at 911 10th St, City Hall Council Chambers
**********